MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986423910 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v4n2p214

Tacit Knowledge Sharing Modes of University Teachers From the Perspectives of Psychological Risk and Value

2015· article· en· W1986423910 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dengke Yu, Rong Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaQueensland University of Technology
KeywordsTacit knowledgeValue (mathematics)Knowledge sharingKnowledge managementExplicit knowledgePsychologyLift (data mining)Rule of thumbMathematics educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tacit knowledge sharing is important to improve the teaching skill and researching knowledge of university teachers. In this paper, the tacit knowledge sharing of university teachers is catalogued as four modes from perspectives of the psychological risk and psychological value which are measured by two grades – high and low. The four modes are named “Peer-review”, “Learning Community”, “Thumb-a-lift” and “Academic Conference”, which are characterized by different values and risks. Some suggestions are proposed to promote the tacit knowledge sharing of university teachers.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207